ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of post-keratoplasty status with a portable and smartphone-attachable smart eye camera.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The use of the smart eye camera for diagnosing and grading cataract in diabetic and non-diabetic patients in an outpatient setting in Jordan.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy of the smart eye camera (SEC), a portable smartphone-attachable camera, in assessing eyes following lamellar corneal transplantation.
methodsThis retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent lamellar corneal transplantation between December 1st 2023 and August 31st 2024. Postoperative evaluations were performed using the SEC and a slit-lamp microscope. All images from the two devices were evaluated by two corneal specialists in a blinded fashion to determine the amount of air or gas in the anterior chamber, and the presence of pupillary block and graft detachment. Sensitivity, specificity, and interrater agreement were calculated.
resultsA total of 26 eyes from 23 patients (12 males and 11 females, mean age: 68.7 ± 15.2 years) were included in this study. Indications for lamellar keratoplasty included endothelial dysfunction (11 eyes were treated with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and 9 with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty), as well as corneal opacity (3 eyes were treated with deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty). Regarding the amount of air or gas in the anterior chamber, the two raters had consistent judgments using the SEC (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.817 [95% confidence interval: 0.616, 0.918]). A difference in pupillary block identification was found between the two examiners using the SEC, with a Kappa coefficient of 0.646. Neither examiner was able to identify the presence of graft detachment using the SEC.
conclusionsThe smartphone-attachable SEC was useful in the evaluation of air/gas volume and pupillary block but not for detecting graft detachment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.